Was the north largely anti-slavery because of moral reasons or because of the uselessness of slaves when compared to factories (That brings up another question, why didn't the north use slaves in their factories)
>>1406989
Read Eric Foner's "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men," since it covers pretty well the ideology of the non-abolitionist majority of northerners who made up the Republican Party. Most of them were mainly interested in preventing the expansion of slavery into the western terrorities because they feared that would undermine their ability to settle in the region themselves and establish family farms and small town communities of the type they were used to in the Midwest and East. They were also concerned with the degradation of labor that they associated with slavery, but the morality and feelings of black slaves themselves were never really taken into consideration. So yes, the political and economic factors associated with slavery and its expansion were bigger concerns for most northerners than moral issues. Which is why most northerners (including Lincoln) were less interested in ending slavery than preventing its spread west. Radical abolitionists were never more than a vocal minority in the North prior to the start of the war.
>>1406989
>why didn't the north use slaves in their factories
They did, the Irish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
A lot of politicians actually argued wage slavery was worse than the southern variety. In the south slaves were provided with food, clothing, medical care and what we'd now call job security. A wage slave may get paid for his work but if all of his money is spent those necessities, is it all that different?
That argument ignores self-determination, of course.
>>1406989
Also, northern capitalists didn't use slave labor in the factories because 1. they were operating in a non-slave society in the north and 2. hiring free wage labor was cheaper than owning or even leasing slaves for factory work. Less obligation to provide for wage workers and their needs once they leave the factory if you don't own them but instead have a labor contract with "free" individuals. Which is not to say that industrial societies and slavery are incompatible (the south's industries and railroads relied extensively on slave labor, and for construction projects).
George Fitzhugh wrote extensively of the north's "wage slavery" and contrasted it negatively with the chattel slavery systems of the South. A lot of poor workers in the North were sympathetic to this line of argument and hence the working class, particularly the Irish had little sympathy for black slaves, since they viewed slaves as having a better lot in life than they did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzhugh#Cannibals_All.21
>>1406989
They wouldn't have been anti slavery, they were very dependant on raw materials (cotton) for their mills, and slave grown cash crops like sugar and coffee. Slavery was an integral part of northern industry and commerce.
>>1407044
>So basically 19th century Capitalism was replacing slavery?
Why are you separating the two? Capitalism and slavery were very much compatible with each other in the nineteenth century and were mutually constructive in a lot of ways in the Americas. Railroads in the south were just as capitalistic as their contemporaries in the north and yet relied extensively on slave labor. What caused the tension between the two regions was that irreconcilable systems of economic and social organization began to develop between the two regions (wage labor industrialization in the north vs slave labor agriculture in the south) that both sides saw as threats to their ways of life.
They could hire blacks at like 1/4th the cost of whites, even if they were Irish.
Giving them freedom meant they could just enslave them up North in a factory. From a factory owner's perspective it was figuratively printing money.
>>1406989
Abolitionism was a fringe movement for most of its history. Most northerners were moderates who did not believe it was just to take away the southern slave owners property.
This mood changed quickly after Bleeding Kansas and the fugitive slave act, followed up by the souths stated determination to block and veto any Homestead Act in order to prevent free states from filling up the plains.
The south had previously been able to rely on most northerners to sidestep around the slavery question, but they overextended themselves politically and gradually turned the plurality of public opinion in the north against them.
Many northerners saw slavery as a bullshit business that was easy to start and profit;
step 1 - buy some land or inherit (there was loads to buy for cheap)
step 2 - buy 10 female slaves for super cheap because women, then buy 1 strong male slave to impregnate them all
step 3 - wait till they're like 10 years old and you have a bajillion slave children ready to pick that cotton
versus
step 1 - get land or inherit land, it's in the north so more expensive than shit in the lousiana purchase
step 2 - hire artisan workers, pay them loads to learn the craft
step 3 - get expensive machines that do it faster than the artisan workers
step 4 - fire the artisans, hire workers
step 5 - pay goons to lock your workers in the factory and threaten them (not even kidding)
was a lot harder to run a successful business in the north and they resented the south for it, they were equally as scummy
>>1406989
"We want no slaves and we want no niggers."
-Lawrence, Kansas's abolitionist newspaper, 1854
John Brown, Henry David Thoreau, and Robert G. Shaw were fringe lunatics even by the standards of abolitionists. Most opposed slavery because they thought it screwed the working class white man, not because it screwed the black man.
>>1406989
The north wasn't "anti-slavery," it was indifferent on the topic. The war was fought over tariffs and state's rights.
>>1407506
Even a lot of people today consider John Brown a fringe lunatic.
>>1407506
>Most opposed slavery because they thought it screwed the working class white man, not because it screwed the black man.
This, and Lincoln wanted to send all the freed slaves back to Africa. Fuck the south and most importantly, fuck John Wilkes Booth
>>1407506
John Brown is a lunatic whichever way you look at it.
>>1409183
"no"
>>1409216
>>1409275
>hurr durr let's attack one of the largest military armories in the country a day's train ride from the Capital to seize weapons we have no means of transporting to give to slaves who have no experience in using firearms.
John Brown's followers might as well have committed mass suicide via self-immolation in front of a slave auction house to protest the institution. It's hard to believe he found any supporters at all given how batshit he was.
>>1409243
You mad we got the last laugh by putting your beloved tyrant six feet under?
>>1411135
>Last Laugh.
>Got a shittier reconstruction instead.
Kek.
You could say that chattel slavery and wage slavery are both a form of slavery. If you read what the influential southerners had to say, they often romanticized the feudal conditions in rural south and thought wage slavery is much more cruel, since the slave owners wouldn't just let their niggers die as they were an expensive investment. Meanwhile the capitalists didn't give a fuck if their workers were dying in sweatshops by the truckloads.
No one was anti-slavery.
